Community Reviews

So far a wonderfully informative formalization of the two competing literary/art theories of Adorno and Derrida. The book takes up the issue that aesthetic theory itself is mediated and thus must consider itself in relation to the production of the 'institution of art.'

Useful in highlighting how in multiple arts what was running parallel to modernism. While Burger's prose itself is turgid, the introduction by Schulte-Sasse does a good job opening up the implications of what Burger is saying about the historical boundedness of the AG, the limits of B's own theorizing, and his relationship to Derrida and other heavies. If you're interested in questions of whether or not political art is viable, the historicity of the terms we develop to define movements, and whaUseful in highlighting how in multiple arts what was running parallel to modernism. While Burger's prose itself is turgid, the introduction by Schulte-Sasse does a good job opening up the implications of what Burger is saying about the historical boundedness of the AG, the limits of B's own theorizing, and his relationship to Derrida and other heavies. If you're interested in questions of whether or not political art is viable, the historicity of the terms we develop to define movements, and what a contemporary AG that isn't just a rehash of Duchamp/Warhol might look like, it would make sense to read this. Or at least the lengthy introductions by SS....more

His ideas are interesting, but the writing is terribly jagged. Especially, his distinction between avant-garde art and modernist art helps understand how self-consciousness of modernist art was taken over by anti-art of avant-garde art. His theoretical analyses, in the Hegelian and Marxist currents, offer a comprehensive overview of the social status of art during the time. However, his selection of artworks is limited, and his accounts of the artworks lack convincing details.

Well that was very slow start; Actually a very slow, painful and dull start: those like me, unfamiliar with the contorted lexicon of marxist critical theory, might be tempted to re-shuffle their "to read" pile every time they face this one, which would definitely be a mistake since after the first chapter it turns out to be very much readable! So if you browse the reviews looking for a guiding hand that could encourage you from the other shore, take note: by the end of the second chapter at theWell that was very slow start; Actually a very slow, painful and dull start: those like me, unfamiliar with the contorted lexicon of marxist critical theory, might be tempted to re-shuffle their "to read" pile every time they face this one, which would definitely be a mistake since after the first chapter it turns out to be very much readable! So if you browse the reviews looking for a guiding hand that could encourage you from the other shore, take note: by the end of the second chapter at the latest you will be past the strictest discussions of historicizing and ideology critique, and enter the more welcoming homeland of art theory proper. What of the book itself then? Chances are, if you have any interest in the avant-gardes, you are already indirectly familiar with Burger's theory: in fact, although he does not feel the need trace it, there is within the avant-garde corpus itself many an example of art turning into life.

The crux of the argument goes something like this: Art is not a perennial category, but what qualifies as art, and a forteriori as good art, is defined and conditioned by the world at large. Whereas in the middle-ages, art was subservient of other fields, in particular religion, it has subsequently evolved towards autonomy, that is it has ceased to be limited in the contents considered worthy of representation: from being restricted to religious themes, it evolves towards the representation of political power during the Renaissance, and with the rise of the bourgeois societies and the revolutions, it reaches an autonomous status proper. What this means is that rather than being restricted in its subjects and methods, art, left to its own devices, becomes increasingly concerned with itself; Art about art, art for art's sake. Burger's original contention is that the apex of this process, the "turning point", he situate not with Baudelaire or the impressionists, but with aestheticism, in which art's autonomy and self-interest comes full circle, leaving the artists with a bitter taste of oblivion and pointlessness in the face of an art entirely withdrawn from the world, yes, fully independent, but also fully disconnected.

Enters the avant-garde: the only thing to do from the standpoint of aestheticism is to start a critique of this autonomy, a critique of art itself, as a concept (in Burger's lingo, as an institution) - process which will take the form of a systematic collapsing of the frontiers between art and life itself. Think of the futurist serata, of Duchamp's ready-mades, of all the manifestos, of the narrowing divide between noise and music, of Russian productionism, of the obsession with architecture, and so on. All those quite clearly aim to either bring us to look at the real and see art (Duchamp) or to look at art and lead us to see the real (abolition of the footlights) - if others have seen contradictory tendancies in those two directions, it seems that to Burger both converge in the destruction of art as a category. Art was meant to become indistinguishable from life.

In terms of methodology, there is a consistent return to three categories taken to be constitutive of the art institution: function, production and reception, and sometimes a return to form and content. On the whole the "theory of art" Burger takes great pain to justify, constitutes a relatively small section of the 100 pages, and is scarcely illustrated. On the other hand there is plentiful discussion of marxist and hegelian aesthetics, with short but gratifying (at least to the philistines of my ilk!) outlines of the thought of Adorno, Benjamin or Lukacs (despite the regretted absence of such a discussion of Bloch); Those seems to bring little to the argument, set aside I suppose an increased credibility in the marxoid circles, but I found them in a sense to offer a welcome background. At any rate this might well explain the accusation of Burger's being a "theory of the theory of art"...

All in all: should you read it? Well if you've read my review so far, probably! Its a bit tough for the first third of the book but gets much easier, and although you might be familiar with many of the concepts here developed, there is a good reason this book is so influential. Beyond the scope of marxist theory (and within too, I suppose!) it does a great job of outlining how much of a break the AG constituted, and offer a very credible explanation of what might have motivated such a shift. ...more

Bürger's some critiques, esp. which are against Adorno, are quite well. Particularly, comments that over hermeneutics. Even though it is necessary that the book must update, it have continued to impact. Nevertheless, the book deserves 3-stars.

I read this in a class on modernist aesthetics, and thought it was one of the most frustrating and inaccessible texts of the class - and we read a LOT of Adorno. Burger's major points are somewhat confused reworkings of Renato Poggioli's earlier text on the Avant-Garde (with the *same* title) as well as a reiteration of the major points of Adorno and Horkenheimer about society's consumption of culture and the difficulty/impossibility of producing art that can foment social change rather than beI read this in a class on modernist aesthetics, and thought it was one of the most frustrating and inaccessible texts of the class - and we read a LOT of Adorno. Burger's major points are somewhat confused reworkings of Renato Poggioli's earlier text on the Avant-Garde (with the *same* title) as well as a reiteration of the major points of Adorno and Horkenheimer about society's consumption of culture and the difficulty/impossibility of producing art that can foment social change rather than be subsumed by the institution of art and the culture industry. His attempts to break out classifications between contemporary artistic movements seem like a desperate attempt to navigate the churning abyss where art and culture and criticism found themselves mired during the modernist period, but ultimately, they are more confusing than useful. His original points about the schizoid nature of modernism notwithstanding, this text provides little in the way of new thought. And what could be a crash course simplifying the main points of more older, more prolific theorists instead is a muddled and incomplete theoretic defense for the avant-garde that comes off sometimes more like a critcism, sometimes like an apology. ...more

Eh. That pretty much sums up how I feel about this book. I read it as a requirement for a course on Modernism and was required to write a precis and present it to my class in order to help add to our understanding in the course.

The book itself is not a horrible read, but it's a very long, time-consuming and dense one - one which took me five or six hours of reading... the language and concepts were comp"Theory of the Avant-Garde (Theory & History of Literature, Vol. 4)" -Peter Bürger (1983)

Eh. That pretty much sums up how I feel about this book. I read it as a requirement for a course on Modernism and was required to write a precis and present it to my class in order to help add to our understanding in the course.

The book itself is not a horrible read, but it's a very long, time-consuming and dense one - one which took me five or six hours of reading... the language and concepts were complicated and took a lot of parsing, as is normally required of theory texts.

In the end, I feel as though I learned a lot, but was also left slightly more confused about everything, because the whole topic encompasses and builds off a lot of things, leaving a reader with a lot to digest.

I definitely didn't hate it; in fact its most interesting moments were when Bürger defined ideas and zeroed in on the finer details of art movements.

I wouldn't recommend it as a leisure read to anyone, but for someone who's looking to read up on avant-garde theory as a supplement of sorts to his or her learning, it's not half bad.

While not the most fun read, Theory of the Avant-Garde is enlightening, especially for some of the projects I'm currently working on. Despite the fact that it's in translation, it was a fairly accessible text, as far as theoretical texts of this nature go. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone unless they are actually interested in or working with avant-garde and/or modernist texts.

I would have enjoyed this book more if we hadn't been assigned the book along with a 7 page minimum single spaced "essay" about 2 weeks before the semester was over. Although I may not have read it if this wasn't the case.